Ask not "Are Animal Lovers Sexist?," but "Can Animal Lovers Be Sexist?" (Answer: duh.)

March 21st, 2010 10:29 am by Kelly Garbato

lol kaylee - just needs a hammer

Don’t fear, Ms. Kaylee is here! lol dog sez, “wonder beyatch – be hear 2 smash ur kyriarchy, mkay?” She brought her Wonder Woman undies, but she’ll need to borrow a hammer. You got a problem with that, human?
——————————

Last November, I penned a brief letter to the editors of VegNews, in which I questioned Rory Freedman’s casual use of the term “fur hag” – “hag” being a sexist, ageist and lookist slur. (VegNews subscribers can read the exact quote in context in Freedman’s column, “Prison or Bust,” which appeared in the December 2009 issue.) Fast-forward several months; my letter was published, albeit with several edits, in the March+April 2010 issue.

Not surprisingly – given the popularity of the term, as well as PETA’s “fur hag” campaigns – some readers disagreed with my comments, including Annie Hartnett of change.org’s newly-rebranded Animals blog. (Many thanks to Marji of Animal Place for bringing the post to my attention!) In Are Animal Lovers Sexist?, Hartnett argues that, ahem, attacking women for their femaleness is not sexist because most fur-wearers are women.

While I have previously deconstructed the term “fur hag” – as well as the campaigns’ associated imagery – what follows is a line-by-line response to Hartnett’s piece. Rather than rehash points that I’ve made elsewhere, however, I’ll use this as an opportunity to build upon my previous argument. If you haven’t already, please go read last January’s On “fur hags” and “fucking bitches.” before continuing on; doubly so if you’re surfing on over here from change.org. (Also related, and referenced in passing below: ARA PSAs: Women, Men and Fur and ARA PSAs: Attack of the Killer Cosmetics.) (1)

Before we begin, though, I’d like to reprint my letter, as Hartnett did not/would not do so, even upon request.

Here is the original letter, in its entirety:

As a vegan feminist, I’m increasingly disturbed by the number of animal advocates who are willing to engage in sexism (and other “isms”) in the course of their advocacy – “for the animals,” of course (as if women are not sentient beings as well). Take, for example, Rory Freedman’s use of the term “fur hag” to describe those who wear fur (“Prison or Bust,” December 2009 issue). “Hag” – a gendered slur that is synonymous with “witch” – literally means “an ugly old woman.” While fur-wearers may indeed be ugly on the inside, a person’s gender, age and physical appearance say nothing of her character. If Ms. Freedman – or any other animal advocate – feels the need to resort to insults, please keep them “ism”-free. “Jerk,” “loser,” “asshat”: all convey a point – without further marginalizing already-marginalized groups of animals, human or non.

Kelly Garbato
Kearney, MO 64060

kelly.garbato [at] gmail.com
http://www.easyvegan.info

By the way, I wrote a lengthy piece on the term “fur hag” last year, wherein I expound upon the sexist, ageist and sizeist nature of the phrase in much greater detail than is possible in 250 words or less. Additionally, I employ PETA’s associated “fur hag” campaign imagery to further illustrate my point. You can read the post in its entirety at http://bit.ly/vl8sB

Seriously, tho’, enough with the misogyny!

And here is the letter as it appears in VegNews:

IsmIre

As a vegan feminist, I’m increasingly disturbed by the number of animal advocates who are willing to engage in sexism (and other “isms”) in the course of their advocacy. For example, Rory Freedman’s use of the term “fur hag” to describe those who wear fur (“Prison or Bust,” December 2009 issue). “Hag” is a gendered slur; it literally means “an ugly old woman.” While fur-wearers may indeed be ugly on the inside, a person’s gender, age and physical appearance say nothing of her character. If any animal advocate feels the need to resort to insults, please keep them “ism”-free. “Jerk,” “loser,” and “asshat” all convey a point, without further marginalizing already-marginalized groups of animals, human or non.

Kelly Garbato
Kearney, MO

As you can see, there’s some light editing going on, some of which is rather puzzling (e.g., making a complete sentence incomplete). I’m including both versions not because I so enjoy the sound of my own fingers typing, but rather to give y’all an idea of the points I wanted to convey (the original letter), as well as the exact points to which Hartnett is responding (the edited letter). Naturally, distilling this post into 250 words or less was a bit of a challenge, but I think I pulled it off. (The great thing about having one’s own blog? You get to set the word limits. Muahahaha!)

null

The quintessential “hag”: the evil witch-queen from Disney’s Snow White. The witch is short, stocky, and haggard; she is plagued by what – for a cartoon character – is an excess of wrinkles; she has a long, crooked nose, topped off with a grape-size mole; her eyes are surrounded by deep, dark bags; her fingernails are overly long and (presumably) yellow; her teeth are crooked and twisted; and she has gray – if not pallidly yellow – hair. She is the embodiment of ugly – and, by association, evil. (2) Eva Longoria, Mary Kate and Ashley Ollsen, Kate Moss – none of these “fur hag” celebrities physically resemble a “hag” in the least.
——————————

Now on to Hartnett’s response. Please go read her post in full, as I’ll only quote the relevant sections below.

I’m a vegan feminist too, but I disagree.

Sure, there are a few fur-loving Kanye Wests and Johnny Weirs out there, but the fur industry is mainly fueled by women. According to the Fur Information Council of America, the sales of fur to men accounts for five percent of total fur sales. If women are buying 95 percent of fur, then it is a gendered issue.

This particular paragraph, I think, cuts to the core of our disagreement. I never said (or even implied) that fur consumption is not gendered. Fur – especially items made primarily of fur, such as stoles and coats – is much more popular and socially acceptable among women than men. (Indeed, remember when David Puddy donned a “womanly” fur coat on Seinfeld, thus making himself a “man furred” object of ridicule?) Fur is considered a fashionable sign of wealth when worn by women, whereas men who wear “flamboyant” fur pieces risk either calling their sexuality into question (hello, homophobia!) or are associated with certain unsavory characters, e.g., “pimps” (a stereotype that’s both racist and classist in nature; and, to the extent that “pimps” are romanticized, misogynist as well).

Given the above, I think it’s both valid and worthwhile to examine the gendered nature of fur – as well as other animal exploitation items of vanity, such as silk, feathered hats and cosmetics tested on animals, for starters – with a critical eye. More so than men (although the gap is slowly narrowing), women’s self-worth rests in their physical appearance – in their perceived beauty, or lack thereof. Girls are socialized from an early age to believe that there’s no higher compliment than to be called “beautiful.” Advertisers chip away at our self-esteem, only to sell us expensive products that are harmful to our bodies and the environment: “anti-aging” wrinkle cream, Botox, fad diets, “breast augmentation” surgery – labia jobs, even. To this end, women consume fashion and beauty items, including fur and cosmetics tested on animals, in disproportionate numbers.

Rather than feed into this cycle by further disparaging women with misogynist insults – by mocking women for being “old,” “fat,” “ugly,” “unfuckable” (or – dog forbid – too fuckable, i.e., a “slut”), etc., etc., etc., why not break it by actively challenging these “isms”?

Yes, fur is most certainly a gendered issue; however, this gender disparity does not grant animal advocates license to use gendered slurs against those who wear fur. Insult the fur wearer’s character and morals – not her sex, age, physical appearance, or other irrelevant, largely genetic personal attributes.

I mean, really. Who cares if Anna Wintour is “ugly” or Donatella Versace, “fat”? (And I’m not saying they are, one way or the other.) The face and body type a person’s born with say nothing of her inner character. Being “ugly” on the outside does not make one ugly on the inside.

PETA’s “Worst Dressed” campaign always attacks fur-wearing women, and men rarely make the list. In 2001, PETA told Sharon Stone: “Put your fur coat away. We saw enough of that tired old beaver in Basic Instinct.” Ouch. PETA has also attacked Star Jones’ weight, called Kate Moss a “supertramp,” and Eva Longoria a “streetwalker.”

More than anything else, this section of Hartnett’s reply boggles the mind. Defending one sexist slur by pointing to PETA’s use of several more? How does that work, exactly?

Referring to Sharon Stone’s “tired old beaver”?: Sexist and ageist.

Along with similar terms such as “pussy,” “cunt,” “tail,” “piece of [ass],” “snatch,” “beef sleeve,” “bearded clam,” “camel [toe],” “fish [taco],” and the like, “beaver” is one of many slang terms – often used in a pejorative or objectifying manner – for women’s genitalia. A number of these terms involve nonhuman animals – many of them either edible (fish, clams, deer, assorted pieces of “meat”) or domesticated/tame-able (cats) – thus linking the oppression of women with that of nonhuman animals. (3)

As if signaling Sharon Stone’s vag out for ridicule isn’t bad enough, PETA further denigrates Stone – and her sex organs – as “tired” and “old.” In addition to the ageist implications that old(er) people are “less than,” this insult adds another layer of misogyny to that already unpeeled. Stone isn’t just old and tired; her “beaver” is old and tired, too. Get it?! Old women are ugly and unfuckable! What man would want to poke a wrinkly, well-worn, loose cunt like Stone’s, anyway? Yuck!

As with “ugly” “old” fur “hags,” the age and tightness of Stone’s vag has nothing to do with her decision to wear fur.

Attacking Star Jones’ weight?: Primarily sizeist, but also sexist, classist and racist. (It’s all connected, yo!)

Save the Whales, Boycott PETA (175x750)

PETA’s billboard, reworked by moi. It reads: “Save the ‘Whales’: Boycott PETA!” The “fat” lady – i.e., the “whale” – appears as a loud and proud VEGAN. Now there’s a billboard I’d happily fund.
——————————

This is an area which received a great deal of coverage over the summer, when PETA put up, took down, and not-really-apologized for that odious “Save the Whales” billboard. I never did get around to writing about it, so instead I’ll direct you to this massive link roundup I compiled of vegan-feminist responses.

The bottom line, for the umpteenth time, is that a person’s body size is not relevant to the discussion. Some underweight people are cruel, mink-wearing, puppy-kicking, baby-juicing fuckers, while some overweight people are the kindest, most compassionate and giving vegans you could ever hope to meet. And vice versa. What’s weight got to do with it? Nothing. To suggest otherwise is to encourage prejudice and stereotyping based on a person’s body size (i.e., sizeism).

How is weight (and thus weight-based discrimination) tied to gender, class and race, you ask?

Gender: What constitutes an acceptable weight varies based on the subject’s sex. Women are allowed less leeway when it comes to weight and body size (and physical appearance overall); whereas a man might be able to “get away” with carrying around an extra 20 pounds, this same amount of weight on a female frame (even one similarly sized) is more likely to be met by ridicule. See, for example, the flap over American Idol Jordin Sparks.

Class and race (and geography, too): While partially genetic/biological, one’s weight is also influenced by environmental factors, such as diet, exercise and lifestyle. While it’s easy for middle-class, suburban white folks such as myself to assume that everyone has several well-stocked grocery stores nearby, not to mention safe neighborhoods in which to play and, if so desired, extra funds with which to purchase gym equipment or a gym membership, these are privileges – privileges closely tied to one’s race, class and geographic location. Impoverished people, people of color, and those living in inner-cities don’t have the same access to healthy/fresh/organic/unprocessed/plant-based foods as do (possibly) you or (definitely) I. Ditto: preventative and emergency health care, knowledge about nutrition, and areas in which to exercise without risking one’s own personal safety.

As I argued on Stephanie’s “Save the Whales” post, rather than shaming overweight people into losing weight, PETA would be better served by increasing access to healthy, plant-based foods, not to mention joining the fight against poverty and working to make schools and neighborhoods safe for children and adults alike.

But I digress.

Race (and ethnicity): In addition to the above, race (and ethnicity) is tied to weight in another way as well: namely, what constitutes a healthy and/or attractive weight (and the two are not mutually exclusive in popular imagination and discourse, though they should be) varies between cultures and across time periods. PETA’s definition of “fat” may not jibe with Star Jones’ – nor may its perception of “fat” as a negative. By pushing Western beauty standards as the ideal, PETA (et al.) is engaging in colonialism.

By the by, the page to which Hartnett links only mentions Jones in passing – and only in relation to Lara Flynn Boyle, one of 2004’s “Worst Dressed” celebs. Because it offers an interesting case study in the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” Catch-22 that is femininity, let’s discuss, shall we?

7. Lara Flynn Boyle – Unlike the entire forest of foxes it takes to cover up previous worst-dressed winner Star Jones, it likely takes just a fox-and-a-half to cover this incredible shrinking actor, so PETA ranks her last for having caused the fewest animals to be drowned and strangled for her coats.

Whereas PETA deems Star Jones “too fat,” Lara Flynn Boyle is “too thin.” Now, I’m not saying that Flynn Boyle isn’t extremely thin – so much so that rumors abound about a possible eating disorder. But this is a classic example of how women can never win; Jones loses because she doesn’t adequately conform to Western beauty standards governing how a woman should look, i.e., thinner than is healthy – while Flynn Boyle also loses because she conforms to these standards a little too closely.

I’d argue that it’s much the same with other areas of fashion and beauty (including the aforementioned fur and cosmetics): women are taught to pay close attention to their physical appearance – but pay too much attention and you’re a superficial, vain little powderpuff. (Wherein just how much is “enough” is forever fluctuating and subject to interpretation.) Funny, that.

Calling Kate Moss a “supertramp”?: Sexist, anti-sex, anti-sex worker, and/or classist.

null

This is Supertramp; Kate Moss, not so much. (For those who can’t view the image – it’s a group shot of Supertramp, the rock band of the late ’70s/early ’80s. LOL my wordplay funtime!)
——————————

So much to deconstruct.

As related to this discussion, a tramp is:

a sexually promiscuous woman

Kate Moss has a lot of sex! She enjoys fucking! Let’s bury the slut up to her neck and stone her to death, shall we?

But seriously. Again, why should the amount of sex a woman engages in – or the vigor with which she does so – be introduced into a discussion about the ethics of wearing fur? Rhetorical question; as with gender, weight, physical attractiveness, etc., it shouldn’t. It’s irrelevant. And for an organization that’s quick to call feminists (including vegan feminists) who oppose its nude campaigns “anti-sex” “prudes,” this sentiment is…awfully sex-negative, no? Sex is a normal, healthy part of life; why all the hate for women who have and enjoy it?

And, um, hello gender disparity! Riddle me this: how many men does a woman have to sleep with before she’s “trampy”? How many women does a man have to sleep with before he’s a “tramp”?

Or, to further muddy the waters: how many women does a woman have to sleep with before she’s “trampy”? How many men does a man have to sleep with before he’s a “tramp”?

Yeah.

But this definition is only partial; the entire entry reads:

a sexually promiscuous woman; prostitute.

As with PETA’s nude ads, “good” (vegan) feminists can and do disagree whether sex work – including but not limited to prostitution – is necessarily misogynist, or can ever be empowering/liberating/feminist/insert your super-awesome adjective here. But there’s a world of difference between being anti-sex work and anti-sex worker. Calling a woman a “prostitute” as a means of (slut-)shaming her is decidedly anti-sex worker. Not cool.

Women enter prostitution for a whole host of reasons. Some see it as a valid and favorable career choice; they enjoy having sex in exchange for money. (One might argue that this sums up the institution of marriage in a nutshell.) Again, why should a woman’s enjoyment of sex count against her? (4) In addition to personal preferences, some women enter the sex industry because they have no other options or marketable skills; as education is tied to privilege (race, class, etc.) anti-sex worker bias is, in a way, racist and classist. Still others become involved in prostitution because of past sexual abuse and/or current drug use. Ableist much? Via human trafficking, some girls and women (and boys and men) are literally “sex slaves” – victims of repeated sexual and physical violence. I hardly think they deserve to bear the brunt of PETA’s ire; do you? (If so, there’s a term for that: victim-blaming.) Finally, sex workers are predominantly women; in fact, you could argue that sex work is one culmination – a logical conclusion – of the social roles that woman are socialized into. Madonna, meet whore. Fittingly, anti-sex worker rhetoric and sentiment is usually aimed at women; it’s sexist. (Wheh!)

But wait! There’s still one more “ist” definition to dismantle!

a person who travels on foot from place to place, esp. a vagabond living on occasional jobs or gifts of money or food.

In other words, a homeless person – a “bum.” As with sex workers, there are many reasons a person may find herself homeless: choice, yes, but also unemployment (due not just to personal irresponsibility, but a faltering economy, so crippled by the actions of a privileged few; most of them white, most of them men – a majority of whom were rewarded, rather than punished, for their immoral-if-not-outright-criminal acts), mental illness (I will see your schizophrenia and raise you PTSD triggered by war time combat!), and drug use/addiction. As with sex workers, none of these conditions make a person deserving of our ridicule.

Calling Eva Longoria a “streetwalker”?: Sexist, anti-sex, and anti-sex worker. See: Kate Moss.

The letter in VegNews suggested animal advocates switch to insults like “jerk,” “loser,” and “asshat.” The trouble is, those words don’t pack much of a punch.

Okay, let’s not be disingenuous here. Seeing as I was penning a letter to a rather PG, family-friendly magazine – and seeing further that I wanted VegNews to actually publish my commentary – I couldn’t exactly let loose with the obscenities. In addition to jerk, loser, and asshat, we have: asshole, wankstain, shitface, fuckwad, dick nose, douchenozzle (5)…shall I go on?

Nor need one stick with standards. Create your own unique combinations! Make up your own silly nonsense words and imbue them with meaning! Learn the curse words of fictional languages! Transform the names of detestable items and people into insults!

Some of the shiniest slang comes from the world of science fiction. (Shiny! Get it!?) Frak off. Gorram. Nugget. And that’s not even counting Klingon!

null

Bernie Madoff appears on the cover of New York magazine, Photoshopped to resemble The Joker. The headline trumpets: “Bernie Madoff, Monster.” Indeed.
——————————

Likewise, Dan Savage singlehandedly transformed “Santorum” – as in Rick Santorum, the former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania – into a noun signifying “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex,” in honor of the politician’s homophobic comments. Why not treat men like Donald Tyson, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, Frank Perdue, John Ensign, Joseph Ratzinger, et al. with the same degree of respect? At the very least, these men deserve to have their names used as insults; sex workers and homeless people, not so much.

Dog gave you a brain; use it. You’re only limited by your own imagination (and, hopefully, your anti-oppressive ethics). “Queer,” “fatty” and “slut” – this is the stuff of schoolyard bullies. Lazy. Unimaginative. Easy. You’re better than this…aren’t you?

After all this, if you still find that oppressive insults such as “fur hag” and “streetwalker” “pack [more] of a punch” than, say, “Santorum” or “hymen hugger,” (6) perhaps you ought to stop and ask yourself why? Why is being a woman – or being “fat,” or “ugly,” or gay, etc. – the meanest, most vicious thing you can call someone? What does this say about our society, and how it values those who are “other”? Is this really a value system you want to perpetuate?

Additionally, the effectiveness of a given strategy says nothing of its moral righteousness. One of the most powerful words in the American English lexicon is one so abhorrent and taboo that I can’t even bring myself to type it in this here space (particularly as someone lacking in melanin). So, Annie: If you really, seriously want to insult a fur-wearer – and if degree of offense is positively correlated with one’s license to offend – then I expect to see the n-word grace the pages of Animals with increasing frequency.

No? I didn’t think so. (And thank dog for small favors.)

I’m less comfortable with using gendered insults when talking about eating animals, as opposed to wearing them. The popular vegan diet book, Skinny Bitch, has also taken a lot of flak for the book’s misogynist language (Including over at the Sustainable Food blog). And earlier today was the first I’ve heard of John Joseph’s book Meat Is For Pussies.

Well, at least I don’t have to explain why pushing thinness as an ideal and tossing around slang for women’s sexual organs in an insulting manner is misogynist. Phew!

Or…do I? Really, one shouldn’t be “comfortable with using gendered insults” at all. Again, pointing out the ways in which animal exploitation conform to gender roles and gendered stereotypes is perfectly acceptable, if not a welcome change of pace for the animal advocacy movement. But this is far, far removed from insulting women merely for being women, which is exactly what gendered slurs do. Meat or fur, it matters not: sexism is sexism, ageism is ageism, lookism is lookism – and none have a place in the animal advocacy movement.

So what do you think? Are animal advocates too vicious towards women? Or is it okay to get catty for the sake of animals?

Catty,” really? Sigh.

@ Annie Hartnett: Consider this your feminist intervention. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com – For the love of dog. Go there, please. Lurk, listen, learn. And try your best to ignore the speciesism – at least until you’ve mastered the feminism and can craft a coherent, anti-oppressive retort to the otherwise badass bitches over there.

She-Ra - Catra 0002

Catra, She-Ra’s would-be nemesis and my imaginary girlfriend.
Kelly ♥’s Catra, furever.
——————————

Me-ow.

—————-

(1) How many “gender + fur” posts must a girl bank before she’s crowned the Official “Fur Hag” Hag ™? Because that would be, like, totally awesome. WANT!

(2) Personally, I much prefer Neil Gaiman’s retelling of the Snow White tale, in which Snow White’s stepmother is not wicked, but innocent and compassionate; so much so that she cannot bring herself to slay her young stepdaughter after the King’s death, a folly which eventually costs the Queen her throne. (Spoiler: All is stolen by a vampiric Snow White and her necrophiliac Prince Charming!) Seriously, read it: the story appears in John Joseph Adams’ vampire anthology, By Blood We Live. Best part of the book.

(3) Yes, the English language is replete with slang terms for men’s genitalia as well (e.g., “cock”); but these do not come close to rivaling female-specific terms in number, nor are they as consistently employed in a negative manner (e.g., when a man is called a “dick” or “cock,” it’s usually with an undercurrent of respect – he may be a jerk, but he’s a jerk who knows how to get what he wants).

(4) Also: nice to see you again, Catch-22! If women are not eager enough to have sex – or do not express adequate pleasure in bed – they are “cold” and “frigid.” If they are too willing to have sex – or express too much pleasure in bed – they are “tramps,” “sluts,” “whores,” etc. What constitutes “enough” and “too much” sexual activity and pleasure, and how do these norms differ according to the subject’s gender and sexual orientation?

(5) “Douchebag” and variants thereof are arguably not misogynist. Ditto: “bitch” and “cunt” (and “hag” in #1 above) when used by women in a positive, complimentary manner.

(6) See!? I thought of this one just now, all by my lonesome! A great slur for a virginity-worshiping misogynist, I tell you what!

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed under , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Ask not "Are Animal Lovers Sexist?," but "Can Animal Lovers Be Sexist?" (Answer: duh.)”

  1. Shannon Says:

    LOVE this! I read your letter in VegNews–I think I turned and said to my husband, “Hey, look, Kelly’s in VegNews!” (He probably said, “Who?” because he only knows my blog-friends by their blog names.) Even edited, it was a snappy retort–probably better than Rory Freedman deserved, but they gave her a soapbox, so we can’t ignore her.

    I was waiting with bated breath to see if you’d mention Santorum! Yay! Dan Savage rocks my world and is largely responsible for my healthy, over-informed attitude about sex. Plus, he is so nice in person.

    Re: fairy tales. Have you read Angela Carter’s The Bloody Chamber? It is my mission in life to encourage all feminists to read her work. Her retellings of those old stories are crazy-empowering, and I can only imagine the hell she would have kept on raising had she not died so young.

  2. Kelly Garbato Says:

    I’ve never heard of Angela Carter, but she’s on my reading list now! I did some poking around on Amazon, and there’s a collection of her short stories – Burning Your Boats: The Collected Short Stories – on sale for $11 and change (just a few bucks more than The Bloody Chamber!). The reviews sound great – I love reworked fairy tales. (Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad is another fave. Atwood’s oeuvre is simply crying out for a vegan feminist review.) Will definitely add this to my next order – thanks for the recommendation.

    And also: you met Dan Savage? Too cool.

  3. PETA Doubles Down On the Misogyny » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info Says:

    […] to explain to you what’s wrong with this quip. Mocking a woman’s physical appearance? Not cool. (48, bitches! 68 if you factor in a bit.ly […]

  4. Skinny Bitch, PETA, and Our Fear of Dissent « Animal Rights & AntiOppression Says:

    […] “Ask not ‘Are Animal Lovers Sexist?’ but ‘Can Animal Lovers Be Sexist?’ (Answ…“ from easyVegan.info from → Animal Rights & Veganism, Feminism & Sexism, Human Rights, Intersections ← Greenpeace Supports* Killing Whales — But Do Detractors Support Something Similar? No comments yet Click here to cancel reply. […]

  5. It’s a pee party, y’all! » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info Says:

    […] particular impresses me, as she can mark just as high – if not higher than – the boys. Wonder Beyatch, represent! Get right with […]

  6. Son of a Bieber!* » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info Says:

    […] my suggestion to fellow vegans that they come up with their own unique insults, rather than rely on the same tired sexist, racist, […]

Leave a Reply